Primitive Directionality and Diachronic Grounding

Kajimoto, Naoyuki; Miller, Kristie; Norton, James

doi:10.1007/s12136-019-00405-0

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 There are still facts about which events are past, present, and future, but these are merely relational facts about where events are, relative to a speaker or a time. 11 See Maudlin (2007), Oaklander (2012), Mellor (1998);Le Poidevin (1991); Tegtmeier (1996Tegtmeier ( , 2014; Kajimoto (2019) and Norton (2020); Bardon (2013). 12 See Price (1996); Farr (2012Farr ( , 2018; Callender (2017).…”

Section: E N D N O T E Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Tensed Facts and the Fittingness of our Attitudes¹

Miller¹

2022

Philosophical Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We direct different attitudes towards states of affairs depending on where in time those states of affairs are located. Call this the type asymmetry. The type asymmetry appears fitting. For instance, it seems fitting to feel guilt or regret only about states of affairs that are past, and anticipation only of states of affairs that are future. It has been argued that the type asymmetry could only be fitting if there are tensed facts, and hence that since it is fitting, there are tensed facts. In this paper I argue that tensed facts are not necessary to ground the fittingness of the type asymmetry, and thus we have no reason, arising from the fittingness of the asymmetry, to posit such facts. I also argue for a stronger conclusion: even if these facts obtain they are no part of what grounds the fittingness of the type asymmetry. These facts are explanatorily redundant.

show abstract

Section: E N D N O T E Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Tensed Facts and the Fittingness of our Attitudes¹

Miller¹

2022

Philosophical Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…13, sec. 3), Maudlin (2018Maudlin ( , p. 1809, Baron and Miller (2018, pp. 115-116), and Kajimoto, Miller, and Norton (2019). 5 Prominent defences of adirectional theories of time fitting this characterisation of C-theory, though without using such labels, include Reichenbach (1956), Gold (1966) and Price (1996).…”

Section: The C Seriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

C‐theories of time: On the adirectionality of time

Farr

2020

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The universe is expanding, not contracting. " Many statements of this form appear unambiguously true; after all, the discovery of the universe's expansion is one of the great triumphs of empirical science. However, the statement is time-directed: the universe expands towards what we call the future; it contracts towards the past. If we deny that time has a direction, should we also deny that the universe is really expanding? This article draws together and discusses what I call 'C-theories' of time-in short, philosophical positions that hold time lacks a direction-from different areas of the literature. I set out the various motivations, aims, and problems for C-theories, and outline different versions of antirealism about the direction of time.

show abstract

“…Several philosophers-including Wilson (2020), Kajimoto et al (2020), and Baron et al (2020)have recently argued for the possibility of diachronic grounding. For example, Wilson is interested in cases of grounding 'that relate entities to the causal histories that are responsible for their kind-membership', as when, e.g., 'the fact that I'm in the mental state of believing that Montana is beautiful [is] partly grounded in the fact that I've had some prior causal interaction with Montana' (Wilson, 2020, 58).…”

Section: Introducing Cross-temporal Groundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross‐temporal grounding

Correia

Merlo

2023

Philosophical Books

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross‐temporal grounding is a type of grounding whereby present facts about the past (for example that Caesar was alive) are explained in terms of past facts (for example that Caesar is alive) rather than in terms of other present facts. This paper lays the foundations for a theory of cross‐temporal grounding. After introducing the general idea of a type of grounding connecting facts to past facts, we offer two arguments that past‐directed facts require cross‐temporal grounds—the ‘argument from intimacy’ and the ‘argument from past explanation’. We then go on to show that cross‐temporal grounding statements can be understood as instances of a type of explanation which is perfectly legitimate and intelligible, even if somewhat unusual. Finally, we explain how the logic of grounding can be extended to accommodate cross‐temporal grounding statements.

show abstract

Primitive Directionality and Diachronic Grounding

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

Tensed Facts and the Fittingness of our Attitudes¹

Tensed Facts and the Fittingness of our Attitudes¹

C‐theories of time: On the adirectionality of time

Cross‐temporal grounding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Primitive Directionality and Diachronic Grounding

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

Tensed Facts and the Fittingness of our Attitudes1

Tensed Facts and the Fittingness of our Attitudes1

C‐theories of time: On the adirectionality of time

Cross‐temporal grounding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Tensed Facts and the Fittingness of our Attitudes¹

Tensed Facts and the Fittingness of our Attitudes¹